TILAK RAJ E GNR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Factual matrix is not in dispute. The petitioner joined the service on March 3, 1948 and was discharged on his request on June 24, 1958 i.e. after serving the Army for ten years, three months and twenty-one days. The petitioner on September 15, 1994, sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the retiral benefits of pension to the petitioner inter alia contending that qualifying service for granting the pension is ten years. The petitioner relied on letter dated October 30, 1987 (Annexure 'P-2') issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi to the Chief of the Army Staff. Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and inter alia contended that the qualifying service for grant of pension in 1958 was fifteen years and relied upon Annexure 'R- 1', an Extract of Regulation 227 of Pension Regulations for the Army in India 1940 (Part II) vide which the petitioner was governed. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any pension.

(2.) We find no force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, as per Annexure 'P-2' on which the petitioner relies, qualifying service has not been reduced with retrospective effect. The said instructions dated October 30, 1987 (Annexure 'P-2') have been made operative from January 1, 1986, and as such these cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner, he having retired about three decades before that. Even otherwise too, nothing has been pointed out at the Bar to show that the petitioner was not governed by the Regulation 227 of Pension Regulations for the Army in India 1940 (Part II), which categorically provides fifteen years qualifying service, which the petitioner has not admittedly rendered. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any pensionary benefit.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner has approached this Court after a lapse of almost 36 years for seeking the relief prayed for. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on Civil Appeal No.23 of 1991 (K.T. Abraham v. Union of India and others) decided by the Supreme Court on July 26, 1994. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the law laid down in K.T. Abraham's case . The pensionary claim of the petitioner in that case was declined, the petitioner having completed fourteen years and ten days of service and not fifteen years of service. The factual position that when the petitioner retired, a person was entitled to pension on rendering fifteen years service, has not been disputed. We find no ground to interfere on this ground too.